ML20133G860

Appeal from 850820 Partial Initial Decision on Mgt Capabilities & Safety Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20133G860
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/08/1985
From:	Eddleman W, Runkle J CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA, EDDLEMAN, W., RUNKLE, J.D.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#485-774 OL, NUDOCS 8510160159
Download: ML20133G860 (34)

Text

_ ____ ______ __________ _____ -__ _ __ __ __________ ______ ___

,174 -- s.

%) -

October 8, 1985 "- ,

g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . .

a ( ' T ', fd0 33 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ;ni .. ; 3 [. , ,

DANC4 In the Matter of: )

)

Carolina Power & Light Company and ) Docket No. 50-400 OL NC Eastern Municipal Power Agency )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Pover Plant) )

APPEAL FROM PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON MANAGEME'.T CAPABILITY AND SAFETY CONTENTIONS Now come the Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), Wells Eddleman (pro ac), and the Joint Intervenors with an appeal f rom the Partin!

Initial Decision on Safety Contentions dated August, 20, 1985, in the above-captioned matter. CCNC and Mr. Eddleman are Intervenors in this docket while the Joint Intervenors consist of several of the Intervenor groups and individuals as proponents of certain consolidated contentions. Mr. Eddlenan and Counsel for CCNC are authorized to argue on behalf of the Joint Intervenors an appropriate in this appeal.

A Notice of Appeal pursuant to 10 CFR 2.762 was duly nerved on August 31, 1985, and a request for a week's extenuton in order to conduct hearings on another contention was filed with the Appeals floard on September 30, 1985. Both the NRC Staff and the Applicantn agreed to this with the proviso that their time for responnen did '1ot begin to run until thin Appent was served.

O')t0160159 001000 0 PDH ADOCK 0000 0

1 .

. (-) <; ; f f)

o TABLE O_F F CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND CASES CITED............................... 3 REQl!ESTFORORALARGUMENT...........................................Y QUESTIONS PRESENTED................................................. f I. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE CAPABLE OF SAFELY MANAGING THE HARRIS PLANT BY IGNORING TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, DENYING Tile INTERVENORS' REQUEST TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA, REFUSING TO REOPEN TH E RE CO RD , AND OTHE R E RRO RS O F IAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f II. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN ALLOWING DELIVERED DOSAGES OF RADIATION TO EXCEED REGULATORY LIMITS BY EQUATING DOSAGES READ AND REPORTED FROM THERM 0 LUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS (TLDs)

WITH DELIVERED D0S ACES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 7 III. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN WHOLLY DEPRIVING THE VARIOUS INTERVENORS OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON IMPORTANT SAFETY-RELATED ISSUES BY REJECTING CONTENTIONS BASED ON AN ARBITRARY STANDARD FOR SPECIFICITY AND BASES AND OTHER ERRORS OF LAW................................................. 20 IV. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN VARIOUS RULINGS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION BY HOLDING THE INTERVENORS TO AN UNREASONABLE STANDARDOFPROOFANDOTHERERRORSOFLAW......................M V. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN ITS RULINGS ON VARIOUS SAFETY-RELATED CONTENTIONS BY UNREASONABLY FINDING THAT EACH CONTENTION WAS RESOLVED IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOR AND THUS ACTED IN AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MANNER....................

C0NCtUSION......................................................... 3a

. - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - =_ _ . - _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - - - . - ._ . _ . -_

i

$' TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND CASES CITED 1

Page j CASES 1

BPI v. AEC, 502 F. 2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1984)................... 20 Brunswick Corp. v. Vineberg, 370 F. 2d 605, 612

( 5 t h C i r . 1T67 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 National Industries Inc. v. Republic National Life i Co., 677 F. 2d 1258 (fth Cir. 19 8 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

'I AGENCY DECISIONS 4

t Carolina Power & Light (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1 - 4), Construction Permit, CLI-80-12, 11 NRC 514 (1980)....................................... 7 Carolina Power & Light (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-400 OL

! Partial Initial Decision (PID) on certain Safety

]

Contentions (August 20, 1985).......................... passim Memorandum and Crder (Ruling on Contentions) i September 22, 1982......................... R I

I 1

! Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)

? LBP-82-50, slip op. at 4 (March 5, 1982)................ 19 J

Q

, Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear l

Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980). 20 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power j Station) 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 l 1 F

Public Service of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station), -

CLI-8 0-31, 12 NRC 2 6 4 (198 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

t 3 Texas Utilities Generating Co (Comanche Peak), LBP-82-17, '

l 15 NRC 595, 595 (1982)'"~................................ 20  !

4

} STATUTES i

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 706(2)(a)............... 16 A t om ic En e rg y Ac t , 4 2 US C 2 2 3 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 ,1. l,21,'2 3 l Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552........................ 14 - 16 l 1

I I l

t l 3 I  !

. -- . . . , . - , , , . , . . . - _ . - . . . . . . . - _ _ - . , . _ . . _ . . , , . _ _ _ _ . . , , , . , _ , _ . _ . - . . . . _ . . , _ _,.__.,m -,.._y., _- -_m.,m.,.. , , , _ . .

4 4

REGULATIONS 10 CFR 2.714(b).............................................. 20 10 CFR 2.718(j).............................................. 14 10 CFR 2.720(h).............................................. 12, 13 10 CFR 2.762................................................. 1 10 CFR 2.763................................................. 4 10 CFR 2.758................................................. 19 10 C FR 2 0 .101 ( a ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 19 10 CFR 20.407................................................ 17 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)........................................... 16, 2$ .

10 CFR 50, Appendix.B........................................ 14 I

i f

i i

I I

s l

4 I

l 1

I i

I l

i l

l l

3A L_

o l

REQl'EST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.763, CCNC, Mr. Eddleman, and the Joint Intervenors request the opportunity to be heard on oral argument in support of these appeals, either in person or in a conference call at the Appeal Board's pleasure, i

i i

t l

i d

4 4

4 1

e QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Did the Licensing Board err in its determination that the Applicants are capable of safely managing the Harris Plant by ignoring testimony presented at the hearing, denying intervenors' request to issue a subpoena, refusing to reopen the record, and other errors of law?

II. Did the licensing Board err in allowing delivered dosages of radiation to exceed regulatory limits by equating dosages read and reported from thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) with delivered dosages?

III. Did the Licensing Board err in wholly depriving the various Intervenors of an opportunity for hearing on important safety by rejecting contentions based on an arbitrary standard for specificity and bases and other errors of law?

IV. Did the Licensing Board err in various rulings for summary disposition by holding the intervenors to an unreasonable standard of proof and other errors of law?

V. Did the Licensing Board err in its rulings on safety-related contentions by unreasonably finding that each contention was resolved in the Applicants' favor and thus act in an arbritrary and capricious manner.

5 i

e ARGUMENT I. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE CAPABLE OF SAFELY MANAGING THE HARRIS PLANT BY IGNORING TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, DENYING THE INTERVENORS' REQUEST TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA, REFUSING TO REOPEN THE RECORD, AND OTHER ERRORS OF LAW.

In their initial filings which raised contentions, the various Intervenors, that is CCNC, Wells Eddleman, Dr. Wilson, the Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort (CHANGE), and the Kudza Alliance, propounded sixteen contentions questioning the Applicants ability to manage the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in light of their experience at it other nuclear reactors. The Intervenors put forth the argument that the competence of the Applicants must be assessed in light of repeated viciations of NRC regulations, poor performance, poor managment practices, excessive Licensee Event Reports (LERs) which are reported to the NRC, Non-conformance Reports (NCRs) which are in-house Quality Assurance (QA) reports, and a general unwillingness by senior mangement to accept responsibility for its own deficiencies.

At the first prehearing conference, the Board encouraged the parties to negotiate a stipulated contention which resulted in Joint Contention 1 as follows:

The Applicants have not demonstrated the adequacy of their managing, engineering, operating and maintenance personnel to safely operate, maintain and manage the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as evidenced by their record of safety and performance at their other nuclear power facilities. A pattern of mangement inadequacies and unqualified and/or inadequate staff is likely to be reproduced at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and result in health and safety problems.

6 t

During the negotiation process, a memorandum was circulated by the

, Intervenors which provided the specificity and bases for the assertion.

Many of the items in this memorandum were used by the Intervenors at the hearing. Discovery on the contention was fairly broad, although emphasis was placed on the eleven violations which resulted in civil penalties at the Applicants' other plants, Brunswick Units 1 and 2 and Robinson Unit 2 (the other being a coal facility). JI Exs. 18, 30 - 37, 41, 42 (summarized in Attachment 1(30) to Joint Intervenors' Proposed Findings, January 9, 1985).

The Licensing Board discusses the standards which it followed in its Partial Initial Decision in its assessment of the management capability of the Applicants. PID, pp. 3 - 4. We agree that this subject is not an easy one to grapple with, especially if the testimony at the hearing is not focused on specific problems.

As the record will reflect, much of the exhibits 7 resented by the Intervenors and testimony elicited from Applicant and Staff witnesses on cross-examination focused on the documented history of the Applicants' failure to achieve progress in managing their nuclear plants. This continuing lack of progress is crucial in assessing the current competence of the Applicants' management and was raised initially by CCNC as a principal area of controversy in the construction permit stage. Unresolved management issues raised by NRC Staff witness, Mr. Cantrell, were the subject of remand hearings in 1979 as part of the construction permit proceeding. The construction permit Licensing Board found that although the Applicants could construct Shearon Harris safely, it was not then in a position to determine mangement capability to operate the facility. As a result of appeals, the Commission addressed this issue by directing the Staff to prepare a preliminary assessment of management capability at the operating licensing stage. 11 NRC 514 (1980). In response to Commission l

7 l - .. , . - . _- - - - - -

l Memorandum and Order, CLI-80-12, dated April 17, 1980, this special

" preliminary assessment" of Applicants' management was conducted in the j summer of 1981 by the Staff and published at 47 Federal Register 12240. It became part of this proceeding as JI Ex. 38 and in part states:

(t)he matrix organization which exists at the corporate level for operation of the Shearon Harris plant lacks the designation of a single individual with overall responsibility for nuclear activities." JI Ex. 38, p. 9.

This document also discusses the first Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP 1 covering April 1,1979 - March 31,1980), which found considerable deficiencies in the Applicants management. JI Ex. 19, I discussed in Joint Intervenors' Findings Nos. 29 - 37; PID, pp. 18 - 33.

The Licensing Board recognizes this and correctly states that " Joint Intervenor Exhibit 40 indicctes that Brunswick was a poorly managed facility in 1981" and further that "(t)he clear preponderance of the other evidence in this case supports the same conicusion." Rather than reiterate all of the evidence which rightly leads the Licensing Board to this conclusion, the Intervenors at this juncture simply state that in 1981, with almost the identical management in place as today, the Applicants had demonstrated a complete lack of effective management at their nuclear plants.

The Applicants, under due notice that their ability to manage their nuclear facilities would be questioned closely at the operating license, did not improve. Staff witness, Mr. Bemis testified that "(b)y mid-1982 the

Regional Office had concluded that no substantial program improvements had beenobservedsincetheCantrellconcedhwereairedinthe1979ASLB hearings on Harris." Bemis, p. 15. Mr. Bemis also testified that in November 1982, the NCR believed CP6L to have a " fossil mentality," that is, that the management at all levis of CP&L were not being kept informed as to what was occurring, that they were only interested in meeting minimum 1

8

7-i l

requirements, and that they did not understand the differences in operating a nuclear facility with its stringent regulations from that of a fossil plant. Joint Intervenors Finding No. 96.

This unresponsiveness continued and in February, 1983, Applicants were fined $600,000, for failure to conduct surveillance procedures and verification for the prior seven to nine years, failure to correct the problem for four years after it was discovered, and further for recognizing that the same major problem applied to that plant's other unit. JI Ex. 18.

The transmittal letter for the civil penalty stated that, "( t)he cause of these violations appears to be a breakdown in corporate and facility management controls in the areas of corporate oversight, facility management and operations, and problem identification and correction." Mr. Bemis characterized this incident as a " breakdown in managment controls." Tr.

3907, 3928.

Before and after this period, the Applicants did not make any of the improvements in management they had committed to. This is evidenced in SALP 2 (July 1, 1980 - December 31, 1981) which reported major weaknesses at the Brunswick plant in plant operations, maintenance, fire protection, plant procedures, radiation protection, environmental protection and quality assurance. SALP 3 (January 1,1982 - January 31, 1983) found weaknesses in the same areas of plant operations, maintenance, fire protection, and I

i quality assurance, with different weaknesses in surveillance, refueling, and licensing activities. Again, Applicants' management had pledged that the company would make changes to correct any deficiency contained in the SALP reports. Utley, Tr. 2969, 2974 ff.

During the 1979 remand hearings, one of the issues raised was the high number of LERs at the brunswick units. At that time, Applicants' position 9

4 was that they were not content with the high number and promised to correct the problem. JI Ex.15 shows the total number of LERs at each of the units l

and demonstrates that instead of improving, the total number significantly increased through 1982. (It is also important to note that the reporting criteria for LERs was changed ef fective January 1,1984, and thus the number after that time will be diminished.)

The recurring management issues of inadequate corporate oversight and lack of nuclear program consolidation were again raised by an audit ordered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission in June of 1983 which had as its first recommendation that the Company "should consider adding one or more outside directors to its Board who are experienced in or knowledgeable about i

nuclear operations." PID, p. 6. At the time of the hearing this step for strengthening Applicants' management had not been accomplished.

Mr. Bemis testified to serveral instances where Applicants did not react "with vigor" to concerns raised by the NRC. It took from November 1982 until August 1983 for the Applicants to restructure their management to have one corporate officer at each of the plants. Actions taken by management in response to the incidents leading to the $600,000 civil penalty were also described as slow. Joint Intervenors Finding No. 102.

Resident inspector Maxwell also testified to five incidents were Applicants i

were not as responsive as they should have been, or did not respond as vigorously as Mr. Maxwell felt they should have to the situations he brought to their attention. Joint Intervenors Findings Nos. 84 - 86.

In preparing testimony for the hearing, the Staff reviewed a provision of the Staff's Standard Review Plan 13.1.1 which states that: "a corporate officer should clearly be responsible for nuclear activities, without having ancillary responsibilities that might detract from his attention to nuclear safety matters." The Licensing Board agrees with the Joint Intervenors and l

l 10 l

,- - , - - - .---.,..e n a ~ -- - - . . - . .

acknowledges that "the only CP&L corporate officer responsible for all nuclear activities is Mr. Utley, who is also responsible for all fossil generation, transmission and distribution for the company" which does not meet the Standard Review Plan acceptance criteria. PID, p. 7 - 8. Mr.

Bemis testified that the Staff considered "further nuclear consolidation (to be) desirable." Bemis, p. 6. We would expect so, especially since the same I

issue of consolidation had been repeatedly raised since 1979.

As discussed above, the Joint Intervenors presented considerable testimony about the unwillingness of the Applicants to make any real changes in their management of their nuclear plants, even in face of massive civil penalties. The Applicants repeatedly stated in one proceeding after another 1

that although they had erred in the past, they would do better in the future. Repeatedly over the time period in question, the Applicants had undergone "a major restructuring of the corporate organization" in response to findings of corporate failures and " systematic failures." Documents and testimony described how this lack of capability has continued and described the Brunswick units to be in many ways the worst in the country with the

$600,000 civil penalty issued in 1983 as the highest civil penalty levied by the NRC at that time.

The only time that the Applicants' management capability has been positively evaluated has been by Mr. Bemis, NRC staff witness, who in November 1982 was placed in charge of overseeing improvements which CP&L management need to undertake to correct the inadequate performance at their operating facilities. Mr. Bemis is also the primary author of much of SALP 4 (February 1,1983 - April 30,1984) which also concluded that the Applicants had improved. Joint Intervenors, Findings Nos. 99 - 100. This conflict will be discussed further below.

11

o Fundamentally, the same management that was in place in 1979 is in place in 1985 and is making similar assertions that they will do better.

This has proven not to be true.

A. The Board erred in denying Intervenors repeated requests to sibpoena a witness in violation of 10 CFR 2.720(h) .

Throughout its partial initial decision on the management contention the Board relied heavily on the testimony of Staff witness Bemis (PID, pp.

4, 8, 9, 12 - 18, 20 - 23, 29 - 31, 33, 35 - 37), in essence agreeing with his testimony in toto about improvements made at the Applicants operating reactors. The Board also relied heavily on the SALP 4 report and the conclusions which Mr. Bemis drew from it that favorably evaluated the Brunswick citing "several major achievements" and "no major weaknesses."

PID, pp. 29 - 30. The Board did this without any discussion of the clear and convincing conflict of interest Bemis had as a NRC staff member whose two responsibilities were "for managing the performance of the NRC inspection and enforcement program at all of the CP&L facilities," and secondly as the primary NRC staff member involved at all phases in the SALP l 4 which showed the Applicants had made improvements.

The disregarding of Mr. Bemis's potential conflicts was compounded by the Board's unreasonable denial of the Applicants' requests to issue a subpoena for J. P. O'Reilly, NRC Region II Adminstrator, Mr. Bemis's immediate supervisor. A subpoena was requested for this witness in order to deliniate the conflicts Mr. Bemis faced in overseeing the Applicants' management and his role in shaping the SALP reports. This request was made in a timely fashion before the hearing in a conference call on August 15, in a request for subpoenas on August 17, with further arguments in a conference l

12

i call on August 27. In a conference call on August 31, the Licensing Board decided not to decide the question but asked Jolric Intervenors to wait until after Applicants' case, which was then extended until after Staff's case.

When the matter was raised again on the next to last day of the hearing, the Board refused to issue a subpoena for Mr. O'Reilly. The Board based its decision on an incorrect interpretation of 10 CFR 2.720(h),

2 stating that it could only issue a subpoena to the staff unless the moving party showed "very strong cause." Tr. 3881 - 3895. It is important to note that the NRC staff did not present motions to quash the subpoenas but only argued that O'Reilly's testimony was not really necessary.

As the Board relied extensively on Mr. Bemis's testimony and the SALP report he primarily offered to form its decision, the Joint Intervenors in all fairness should have been afforded the opportunity to attack the credibility of that witness and more importantly, to discover the bases for his opinion that the Applicants had made improvements in their management.

The need to cross-examine third parties on the bias of a NRC Staff witness is surely more of an exceptional circumstance than the example in 10 i

CFR 2.720(h)(2)(1) described as exceptional, that is "a case in which a particular named NRC employee has direct personal knowledge of a material fact not known by the witness mad available..."

l l

! i l l l

I l

13

B. The LicensinF Board erred in denying Joint Intervenor's motion to reopen record to include an affidavit in direct contradiction to Applicants' witnesses and material pertaining to the development of the SALP reports.

On November 13, 1984, Intervenors moved to reopen the record on this matter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.718(j) which states that the presiding officer has the power to " reopen a proceeding for the reception of further evidence at any time prior to initial decision." The test developed by NRC decisions is that the record can be reopened to admit evidence which would somehow affect the outcome of the proceedings, not limited to whether the Licensing Board would or not issue the operating license based on the evidence, but including such matters as license conditions or even adverse findings.

Attached to Intervenors' Motion was an affidavit by Chan Van Vo, an engineer at the plant who raised safety-related issues about plant construction. His affidavit is relevant to the management contention is that the statements he makes on pp. 9 and 14 about taking his safety concerns to CP&L Vice President, Mr. McDuffie, and Executive Vice President, Mr. Utley, directly contradicts their testimony that no worker had ever brought safety concerns to them. Additionally, Mr. Van Vo's affidavit goes to the ability of Quality Assurance to check the checkers, maintain adequate records, and otherwise develop and maintain a system which prevents substantial quality problems from arising in violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

The second collection of evidence is the list of the documents which the NRC Region II Staff withheld from disclosure. The material was i requested by Mr. Eddleman on August 3, 1984, under the Freedom of Gusc552 Information Act (FOIA),,and requested that the NRC Staff supply "all minutes, meeting notes, other notes, draf ts and other documents underlying, l 14

h used in preparation of, or prepared in connection with" the various SALP reports on the Applicants' nuclear plants. In disregard for mandated time limits, the agency did not respond to the request within ten days, waiting until September 14 (the last day of the management hearing) to respond with a list of documents they were raking available. This disclosure was supplemented with additional material on October 19, 1984. The Board allowed the Joint Intervenors to supplement the record with these material which was not done as most of the material had already been introduced as exhibits by the Intervenors.

The motion to reopen the record included a list of material which the NRC Staff proposed to withold in their entirety, claiming that the documents were predecisional documents under Exemption (5) of FOIA. This exemption is discretionary on the NRC Staf f's part and as the material was relevant to the management contention and particularly, to Staff witness Bemis's testimony and credibility, the Joint Intervenors urged that the material should have been made available as a matter of course. The NRC Staff position was that the production or disclosure of the material "is contrary to the public interest." The background material to the SALP reports in all likelihood will bear our suspicions that the recommendations and categories of SALP 4 were significantly changed during the process of drafting the report. This suspicion may of course be groundless but we have done all we can to diligently get material from the NRC Staff which would prove or disprove this.

It is also important to note that SALP 4 was not served until August 1, 1984, and the timing of its release before the hearing on Joint Contention 1 precluded Intervenors from discovery on the bases of the report's

conclusions. We realize that the merits of the FOIA request are in large l part outside the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board but offer it as an example

15

of the NRC Staff's involvement in the resolution of this contention in Applicants' favor.

C. The Licensing Board erred further in, concluding that this contention was resolved in Applicants' favor.

The burden is on to Applicants in proving that the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant will operate "without endangering the health and safety of the public..." 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). This is underscored in the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, particularly 5 USC 706(2)( A), which empower a reviewing court (and the Appeal Board acts as a reviewing court in this Appeal) to " hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion."

In light of the previous arguments and the discussion of the testimony presented in the hearing, the Licensing Board was arbitrary, capricious, and abused its discretion in finding that this contention was resolved satisfactorily in the Applicants' favor. Based on a review of the entire record, not only does all of the substantive and uncontested evidence point to a lack of management competance by Applicants, the Applicants have attempted to meet their burden by once again pledging to do better in the future.

16

_ -. = - . . _ _ .

II. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN ALLOWING DELIVERED DOSAGES OF RADIATION TO EXCEED REGULATORY LIMITS BY EQUATING DOSAGES READ AND REPORTED FROM THERM 0 LUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS (TLDs) WITH DELIVERED DOSAGES.

4 Joint Contention IV, af ter considerable paring down in responte to various motions by Applicants and Staff, was litigated as "whether the TLDs and measuring equipment and processes to be used at the Harris facility can i measure occupational doses with sufficient accuracy to comply with the NRC regulations." The Intervenors assert that even if one accepts the Board's finding that all of the various sources of uncertainty introduced in processing and handling the TLDs are minimized, the inherent inaccuracy of the TLDs allow considerable exposure to some workers in excess of regulatory limits on delivered dosages.

The radiation dose standards for individuals in restricted areas are clearly set forward in 10 CFR 20.101(a) which reads as follows:

...no licensee shall posses, use, or transfer licensed material in such a manner as to cause any individual in a restricted area to receive in any period of one calender quarter from radioactive material and other sources of radiation a total occupational dose in excess of the standards (that follow:)

1. whole body; head and trunk; active blood-forming organs; lens or eyes; or gonads....1 1/4 (rems per calender quarter);

hands and forearms; feet and ankles. . . .18 3/4 (rems per calender quarter); skin of whole body... . 7 1/2 (rems per calender quarter).

These standards are limits for delivered dosage to which workers may be exposed, although 10 CFR 20.101(b) allows these dosages to be exceeded in certain limited conditions.

The Applicant also has an affirmative duty to provide an annual report to the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 20.407 which is to include a

" statistical summary report of the personnel monitoring information recorded '

by the licensee" for those individuals in various restricted areas. The reporting format is the deliniation of workers over various ranges of 17

estimated whole body exposure, in cuarter rem increments in the lower limits to full rem increments when annual exposure is greater than one rem. Again, these are based on the actual delivered dosage received by the workers.

The basic finding supported by all testimony was that the ANSI performance standard for the reading of TLDs is 50% accuracy in most ranges at the 95% confidence level (expressed in terms of P + S < L). In other words, the ANSI standard assures that virtually every dosimeter tested by a particular processor must be accurate when read to within plus or minus 50%

of the actual dosage. The standard promoted by the International Comission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) is more stringent and can be expessed irl mathmatical terms as: II + 2S < 0.5, with a description of the uncertainty that is acceptable. PID, pp. 40 - 45. The Licensing Board addresses the differences between the ANSI standard and the ICRP standard and states that

"(r)egulatory compliance is not compatible with the acceptance of performance with a standard deviation of 50%." The Board finds that the ICRP recommendation with its is compatible with its interpretation of the NRC regulations. M ., p. 45.

Testimony also described how the Applicants' program worked and the steps they made to minimize other sources of uncertainty. As described in NUREG/CR-2891, these include: (1) the type of radiation and the different radiation energies; (2) the angle of the radiation; (3) ambient temperature and humidity; (4) time intervals between issue, irradiation, and processing; (5) response to light; (6) position of the badge on tha body; and (7) possible bias of an open test. Steps must also be made to minimize dosimiter variability and clerical and operator errors. Although the Intervenors contested the adequacy of the Applicants' program, the Board i

18

l i

found that based oa the testimony presented the Applicants could meet the 4 ANSI standard as a minimum. PID, p. 52.

The Intervenors presented in their findings a formula to determine the relationship between the dosage which was read and reported from the TLD (and which fell within a 50% accuracy range) and the delivered dosage which is limited by the regulations in 10 CFR 2.101. This formula is as follows:

R + .5R = X, where X is the regulatory limit as determined in 10 CFR 2.101 and R is the maximum value which can be read f rom the TLD with 50% accuracy and which does not exceed the actual limit. The Board, in its Finding 23, agreed with the Staff and dismissed the real distinction between the reported dosage and the delivered dosage as an " exotic modification to the regulations..." which is beyond the Board's authority to allow. The Board agreed with the Staf f's reply to the Intervenors' proposed findings in that this was an improper challenge to the regulatory limits and that the 1 Intervenors' renedy whould have been to show "special circumstances" pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758.

The 29ard erred in allowing the Applicants to violate the regulatory limits for actual exposure to radiation. By following the ANSI standard,

which for the sake of argument the Applicants appear to be capable of meeting, the Applicants will consistently violate the limits for actual delivered dosage. The Applicants following the ANSI standard without i

correcting for the difference between reported and actual means that whenever an annual dosage is read as 5 rems, half of the time the regulatory j

limit will be violated. Indeed, if Applicants desire to follow the ANSI standard for reported dosage rather than be held to the regulatory limits for delivered dosage, then it is up to the Applicants to petition under 10 t CFR 2.758.

19

e l

III. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN WHOLLY DEPRIVING THE INTERVENORS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON IMPORTANT SAFETY-RELATED CLAIMS, INCLUDING THE IN REJECTING CONTENTIONS BY NOT ADHERING TO THE PROPER STANDARD FOR THE ADMISSION OF CONTENTIONS.

The admissability of contentions is governed by 10 CFR 2.714(b) which requires that an intervenor file a list of contentions "and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." The Licensing Board recognized this regulatory requirement and explained it further by stating that a contention is required to include "a reasonably specific articulation of its rationale--eg., why the applicant's plans fall short of certain safety requirements, or will have a particular detrimental affect on the environment." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-50, slip op. at 4 (March 5,1982). The point of this rule is to assure that the Licensing Board considers only those issues that are reasonably capable of being litigated and that the utility and the Staff are put on notice of the charges they must defend against. Philadelphia Electric Co.

(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station), 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).

While the rule for adequate bases and specificity has been upheld by the Court of Appeals in BPI v._ AEC, 502 F. 2d, 424 (1974), misapplication of this standard of review might impermissibly deprive intervenors of the right to a hearing under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 USC 2239.

One pitfall which the Licensing Board in this matter fell into was in reaching the merits of a contention at the initial pleading stage, although it addressed this issue correctly in its Memorandum and Order at p. 4 by stating "if an applicant believes that it can readily disprove a contention admissible on its face, the proper course is to move for summary disposition following its admission, not to assert a lack of specific basis at the

20

I i = l l

pleading stage. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980). The Allens Creek

decision held further that although there should be some factual basis for

$ the allegation contained in the contention, the extent of factual support that is required is minimal. In that case, the Appeal Board reversed the Licensing Board and admitted a contention alleging that the plant was not

! needed in light of the potential for producing energy from a marine biomass farm. Although the Appeal Board was highly skeptical of the intervenor's ability to support the contention, it ruled the contention was valid as both the Staff and the utility knew what they would have to defend against. The

validity of factualy allegations may not be considered in determining whether a contention may be admitted.

With this standard of review, various contentions which were rejected will be addressed. Other specific arguments will also be raised for each if appropriate in light of the rationale advanced by the Licensing Board in rejecting each contention. However, Appellants stress that l

this argument applies, and we are raising it, with respect to each and every safety contention raised by CCNC, Eddleman, or I

others of the Joint Intervenors, i.e. Kudzu Alliance and CHANGE, or any combination of them, e.g. as Joint Intervenors, or individually. For example, the CHANGE contentions on failure modes and QA (14,16,23,25,26) not withdrawn are good contentions Intervenors are entitled to a review of all contentions, since the public has a right to a hearing under the Atomic l

Energy Act (42 USC 2239) on every issue raised with adequate l contention (s).

l

. . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _____..____ _

t I

The Board erred in ruling out Eddleman Contentions 48 through 51 on the basis that Contention 47 had been withdrawn.

(Memorandum and Order ruling on contentions, 9-22-82) since they simply reference a basis given in the text of contention 47 The rejection of contentions on equipment qualification other than 9,11 and a duplication of 11, was capricious.

The Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) issue on Conten-tion 115 is adequately specific, and the denial of hearing on unresolved safety issues (Contention 107) was not proper.

Risk assessment and accident analysis and failure modes and i

effects analysis, e.g. contentions 4,7,108,111,34,58(the first 58),

63,105,119,125) are also important and were rejected without any chance to go on. The transportation of spent fuel raised many safety issues in Contention 64 which were quite specific and unfairly and unreasonably rejected. The safety of the reactor vessel was also challenged in Contentions 92, 130 and 131; radiological monitoring in Contentions 2, 91,102 and 103). Contention 127 and 123 would challenge operator training and qualification. Contention 126'X" challenged waste transport, which again was rejected.

Appellants contend that in light of the above standard of review, these rejections cannot all stand, and review of the individual contentions case by case is necessary.

l In addition, the rejection of new concrete contentions 65 A and B, filed 6/14/84, was wrong because the problems are identified clearly and it was Applicants' delaying tactics i which withheld the information sought. Applicants have been clear about not wanting to release information on which con-tentions might be based. Yet, at the outset, the only basis available to Intervenor would have been speculation and that might well have caused the contentions to be rejected. To allow Applicants to avoid contentions by delaying and concealing tactics (avoiding the release of information about problems with their plant) strikes against the very basis of the public's right to a hearing under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 USC 2239

Similarly, the rejection of contentions 132 A, 132 B, 132 (c)

(1) and 132 (D) ett al. on the grounds that the Staff is to review the matters in question, likewise violates the public's right to a hearing. In this case, a later Staff report on the control room at Harris validated the concerns raised in the

' above-cited (132-A,B,C(l),D et al) contentions in many cases.

The right to a hearing on a very specific allegation that is later shown true by Staff review cannot be denied on the basis that the Staff is going to conduct such a review.

Indeed, it is clear that the basis of these contentions, j

that certain requirements had not been complied with, was true on its face, and specific enough to litigate. ,

Use of pending Staff review as a means to avoid admitting contentions is not proper. The Staff's actions (or in this case, inaction in evidently not responding on the contentions in accord with what its members knew) is also worthy of investigation, but the proper forum for allegations against the Staff may be elsewhere than in ASLB hearings.

I l

F l

-w- - - ,- * -

f 1

l l

IV. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN VARIOUS RULINGS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION BY HOLDING THE INTERVENORS TO AN UNREASONABLE STANDARD OF PROOF AND OTHER ERRORS OF LAW.

The Licensing Board in granting motions for summary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749 erred in holding the various Intervenors to an unreasonable standard of proof. Although 10 CFR 2.749 does not specifically refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Commission stated that

"(m)otions for summary disposition under Section 2.749 are analogous to motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Federal court decisions interpreting that rule may be relied upon in NRC proceedings." Texas Utilities Generating Cet. (Comanche Peak),

LPB-82-17, 15 NRC 593, 595 (1982). In Federal courts, as in proceedings before the Licensing Board, " summary judgment is a lethal weapon, and courts must be mindful of its aims and targets and beware of overkill in its use."

Brunswick Corp. v. Vineberg, 370 F. 2d 605, 612 (5th Cir. 1967).

J By admitting the contention, the Licensing Board has recognized that there are issues of fact inherent in the contention, as indeed it must under

Public Service Co. of,0klahoma (Black Fox Station), CLI-80-31,12 NRC 264 (1980). It is clear that Applicants have the burden of proving that they can safely operate their nuclear plant, and when the Applicants move for summary disposition, they assume an additional burden. To carry their motion for summary disposition they must first, before any of the

! Intervenors respond, submit papers which establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. It is not enough by any means for the moving party to simply present evidence that is legally sufficient to support a judgment in its favor. National Industries Inc. v. Republic National Life Insurance Co., 677 F. 2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1982). Until the t

24 l

4 3

Applicants have done this, the Intervenors do not have any burden whatsoever. Moore summarizes thusly:

The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which uder applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to judgment as a matter of law. The courts hold the movant to a strict standard. To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear where the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. 6 Moore's Federal Practice 56.15(3) at 56-463 ff.

When the non-moving party does submit papers in opposition, then "the papers j supporting movant's position are closely scrutinized, while the opposing l

! papers are indulgently treated, in determining whether the movant has satisfied his burden." Id. at 56-469 ff.

The Licensing Board in making its rulings on Applicants' motions for l summary disposition required an unreasonable burden of proof of Intervenors by ruling for the party who presented the most or weightiest evidence. The test used by the Licensing Board was to detrmine if the evidence was i

sufficient for a successful resolution after hearing, rather than the degree 1

of proof merely to show that there were issue of fact and law to be heard.

The above standard for reviw is apt for each of the following granted motions for summary disposition.

i s

i 25

We first note that the Board, by dividing this safety partial initial decision, leaves perhaps some doubt as to which earlier summary dispositions are now ripe for appeal, a doubt somewhat reinforced by the explicit inclusion of two summary dispositions at the end, 132 (C)(II), and 11 (both Eddleman contentions). For self-protection, we here challenge other summary dispositions, Eddleman 29, 45, 64F, 132 and Joint Contentions 5 and 6.

As to 132(c)(II), the Board improperly ignored the evident fact that the diagrams of the panels of the control room at Harris to which it very explicitly refers were almost illegible in cases, and generally gave insufficient information to specify counter-arguments other than lack of information and lack of accuracy in Applicants' motion for 1

summary disposition and allegedly supporting documents. The blueprints were vague and not the best, yet CF&L said they were the best copies available. To avoid hearing by relying on a lack of information and lack of clarity in the Applicants' information is farcical, yet that appears to be what the Board below effectively did.

As to Contention 11, the main error may have been in not allowing it to be amended to include the neoprene that CF&L principally uses as cable insulation. However, the evidence produced on summary disposition was insufficient to close off the issue, even though the intervenor did not directly respond beyond what was available on discovery and a reauest to look into the neoprene issue.

With regard to Contention 64F, without a binding agreement with the NRC, the conditions upon which summary disposition was apparently Granted (not using the cask with a valve of the type referenced, not plannin6 to ship spent fuel to Harris) are unenforceable and may have the effect of denying public ri6ht to a hearing if Applicants in the future decide to change their minds and a contention is not then accepted.

I 26 __ _

o

~

l Concerning Contention 45, although the Staff claimed it was resolving the issue generically, the specific application to Harris was not resolved in Intervenors' view. There was not assurance that water hammers would be prevented nor that they would not dama5e safety systems, as seen in the defense to summary disposition and on discovery.

Re Contention 132, the reactor vessel level measuring device was not shown to be proof against all problems raised with it during discovery. The confidence of the manuf acturer, the Staff and the Applicant do not count for much if the system does not do the job (af ter all, the manuf acturer, Staff and Applicant and 3 Mile Island had confidence, and a serious accident resulted in part from inaccurate water level information). This instrument, through error or failure, could create an accident. Or, it would be able to make an accident that would otherwise be less serious, very serious and dangerous to the public.

Re Contention 29, Radiciodine release, as a safety issue the control of radiciodines is very important, and the information brought forward for summary disposition does not get rid of the issue. TheStaff is evidently still checking on radioiodine release pathways and requiring redesign, checks on radioiodine detectors, and other measures. This contention is noted here for the purpose of protecting against its falling within the PID of 8-20-85; it has also been interpreted sometimes as environmental.

In sug, Intervenors believe the sword of summary disposition has been swinging indiscriminately in this case, and even if Joint Intervenors did not respond promptly enough to discovery on Joint Contentions V and VI, we think a lesser action than summary disposition for these contentions, is right.

Re those others cited above (for the different reasons cited above, and under the standard of review and law cited pp.24-25) summary disposition was clearly wrong, and should be reversed.

27

i i

1 l 1

l V. THE LICENSING BOARD ERRED IN ITS RULINGS ON VARIOUS SAFETY-RELATED r I

, CONTENTIONS BY UNREASONABLY FINDING THAT EACH CONTENTION WAS RESOLVED IN THE i APPLICANTS' FAVOR AND THUS ACTED IN AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MANNER.

i 1 l l The burden is on to Applicants in proving that the Shearon Harris i

, Nuclear Power Plant will operate "without endangering the health and safety I

of the public..." 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). This is underscored in the i

provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, particularly 5 USC l

[ 706(2)(A), which empower a reviewing court (and the Appeal Board acts as a reviewing court in this Appeal) to " hold unlawful and set aside agency l

l action, findings and conclusions found to be... arbitrary, capricious, an l

l abuse of discretion." Determination by the Appeal Board must be based on a review of the entire record, with due regard for all of the substantive  ;

evidence and testimony as well as the other motions and proposed findings.

l 1 This standard of review is also discussed in regards to the argument i I

I I.C. above, and is relevant to each of the decisions of the following I

j safety-related contentions. Other errors of law and fact in the Licensing  ;

i j Board's PID will also be discussed. The Appeal Board has the author-l ity to substitute its judgment for the Licensing Board's, based '

l on a review of the entire record.

l The Board below evidently misinterpreta Contention 9G to  ;

j only concern " test failuros" (PID at 91, Finding 99; PID at 9'/,

l Finding 112 ). On its face,.however, it is concerned with

~

! fraudulent testing or qualification by similarity. :PID at 54-55 This is the Board below's first obvious error. Thel}ID does not, f

, therefore, and cannot show that Applicants have carried their burden of proof on the fraud / validation issue. It isn't dealt l with,in the Board below's findings. Yet the fact that there are I other concerns in 9G is in the record, e.g. Tr. 5658. nee 5655-60.

l i l  !

4

, l 1

1

The second error is akin to the first

Finding 112 (PID-f at 97) applies the burden of proof exactly backwards. It is  !

j not up to the Intervenor to create doubt; rather the Applicant must prove its case. Even finding 107 points out that the l

Applicant qualified a vendor (Conax) through a system (CASE) that depends on another utility's audit (ibid.) Moreover, l

review of the transcript will reveal that questions concern-I ing independent attempts to ferret out fraud were either answered favorably to Intervenor's position, or not allowed.

j See, e.g. Tr. 5563-64; as to additional issues see Tr. 5671

] g g j g of proof following Tr. 5674-- questions on this 1

Moreover, Applicants' testimony revealed the Eouipment 3 '

Qualification (EQ) was not complete (Tr. 5519-20)* find" slowed i missing information (Tr. 5520-21-22, see whole answer begin-j ning on 5521). Thus, a second option was selected (Tr. 5522) to get qualification reports from CONAX (Tr. 5525) which, l

]

i as noted on the preceding page, was qualified by an audit not f done by Applicants nor staff, but by another utility. The l

qualification test parameters are not in the testimony (5524-

,! 25). Then other cables are to be qualified by similarity to one passing a text by CONAX which CPE did not witness l

] directly. (P.6 direct, ff. Tr. 5515, and Tr. 5543 re qualification by similarity, for examples). CPE witness l

Hate had no feel for the percentage of suppliers CPE l audited (Tr 5555-56), and industry. Sworn statements by in the interrogatory responses CPE were l

("Not every test failure needs to be reported") and the j

direct testimony ("All test failures must be documented")

l (Tr. 5562), but CPE gets its assurance from the tester's ,

"own internal quality assurance program" Tr. 5564, evidently: I

}

j l Tr. 5562=64.

When you add up the evidence, Applicants have obviously failed to carry their burden of proof and the Staff hasn't done much of an investigation (re this, see Tr. 5555-60,5664).  ;

Thus, the record is not there to carry the burden of proof, an A icants' case fails both on the narrow "Rockbestos issue" ang ogpghe broader Contention 90.

29

I o

With respect to Contenticu 65, the Board below was so ea5er to accuse intervenor Eddleman of error (PID at 106, Finding 15 (sic)) that it miscited the transcript. What the Board cites as following Tr. 6627 is evidently the Staff testimony that actually follows Tr. 6320 at least in our copy of the transcript.

However, the situation is not quite as clear as the Board below would have it. Concerning the clearances to asbestos board in pour ICBSL216001 (Applicants' Exhibit 21, see e.g. at Tr. 6377), the Staff witnesses agreed (Harris, not disputing Lenahan) that the " records" they reviewed re the asbestos board were part of the pour package, i.e of Applicants' Exhibit 21. Tr. 6388.

Q. On page 45, when you are talking about asbestos board, down at the bottom of that state-ment, you talk about review of the records.

Were those records this package, pour package?

A. (Witness Lenahan) Yes.

Q. Mr. Harris, were you wanting to add something?

A. (Witness Harris) No.

Here's the point: At least in intervenor Eddleman's review to date of that pour package, correction of the problem is not documented except to say that it won't be done again.

The unnamed inspector the Staff refers to provides only hearsay from an unnamed witness. There is no showing that this inspector was not available to be put on the stand, but no one did that. Since the Applicants bear the burden of proof, they cannot bear that burden through hearsay from another party with no showing the witness is not available.

Nor is this matter the Board's only error on this conten-tion. Staff witness Bemis evidenced confusion, and probably a lack of careful record-checking and credibility, concerning inspections that he said dealt with Harris concrete in an affidavit he filed supporting summary disposition of this contention, but which he evidently did not even refer to in his testimony on this contention (Tr. 6390-92). It is not clear that the Staff is not covering something up.

30

e The Board ignored the question of the Staff's credibility.

Also, Finding 17 (FID 107-108) is deficient in ignoring evidence that the Applicants violated the American Concrete Institute Code. This is evident from the testimony on Tr.

6326 and 6329 where witness Harris (not Bemis) states that the code requires no cylinders below 75% of required strength, and mentions (on cross) two that evidently do, one at 2440 psi (less than half of the required 5000 psi) and one at 3620 (obviously less than 75% or 5000, which would be 3750). Tr.

6326. These cylinders were tested by witness Woltz (subpoenaed) see Tr. 6268-69; the 3 consecutive cylinders (Tr. 6266)(6268) are on one attached strength test data sheet, and two more are on another. .These sheets are part of package (Applicants' Exhibit 14, see Tr. 6259-)'in evidence, the last 2 sheets we believe, and can be directly inspected. It's clear the code was violated, and the Staff witness who admitted that is not the one (Bemis) whose credibility is questioned above.

l l

Es l

'a s

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, CCNC, Mr. Eddleman, and the Joint Intervenors urge that the Partial Initial Decision of the Licensing Board and the previous decisions of the Licensing Board on other environmental matters herein appealed from be reversed and that these proceedings be remanded to the Licensing Board for further consideration consistent with the positions urged herein.

Respectfully submitted, ohn Runkle Counsel for CCNC 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Wells Eddleman (pro se) 806 Parker St.

Durham, NC 27701 919/688-0076 l

This is the 8th day of October, 1985.

N . . . - - . - .- _

t o

D CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this Appeal From Partial Initial Decision on Management Capability and Safety Contentions on the following persons by deposit in the U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery.

DU. ETEL Thomas S. Moore, Chairman (appeals only) M. Travis Payne  ? -

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board PO Box 12643 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27605 Washington, D. C. 20555 *85 (CT 15 A10 38 Dr. Richard D. W'_Ison Dr. Reginald Gotchy (appeals only) 729 Hunter Street Atomic Safet; & Licensing Appeal Board Apex, NC 27502 fhhff. ,. ,77ygjyggj}g US Nuclear Regulatory Commission SRANCH Washington, D. C. 20555 Wells Eddleman 806 Parker Street Howard A. Wilber (appeals only) Durham, NC 27701 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board j US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E. Jones Washington, D. C. 20555 Dale Hollar Legal Department James L. Kelley Carolina Power & Light Atomic Safety & Licensing Board PO Box 1551 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27602 Vashington, D. C. 20555 Thomas A. Baxter Glenn O. Bright Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1800 M Street, NW US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert Gruber Dr. James H. Carpenter Public Staff--Utilities Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board PO Box 991 US Nucle ~ar Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27602 Washington, D. C. 20555 H. Al Cole, Jr.

Docketing and Service (3 copies) Attorney General's Office Office of the Secretary PO Box 629 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27602 Washington, D. C. 20555 Spence W. Perry (emerg. planning)

Charles A. Barth Associate General Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director FEMA US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 C Street, SW, Ste. 480 Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20740 Bradley W. Jones NRC--Region II This is the 8th day of 101 Marrietta Street October, 1985.

Atlanta, CA 30303 Daniel F. Read  ;,(

2 !g:7 f___ / # b' ne PO Box 2151 Wells Eddleman Raleigh, NC 27602 pro se_

.A

, ,. . . , . , , - . - -